The person with the most money is paying for the person with the least money. i think we all know this is what is happening and I am not sure what your actual point is.
I think we have all worked it out that if you live in an more expensive area of london with good schools you need to earn more and pay more thna if you live in a less expensive area? It appears we agree the person with the most money has the most money, the nicest house, lives in the best area a, gets better education [ for their offspring]and has more money than the poorer one. Should we be subsidising so they can have even more advantages than someone poor?

PS your figures [ the 50 k tax]appear to include NI

Flicking through this long thread I am not sure that is clear to all - there certainly seems to be an under current of thought that those who earn less were disproportionately paying for those who earn more through child benefit. Which I don't believe to be the case even when the 'better off' were receiving child benefit.

My own view is that very few people in full time employment should actually receive child benefit (they should probably be taxed less by a better system) and it was never enough to give any notable advantages the children of someone who earns £50k a year. It would however contribute to either the (very) basic clothing or feeding requirements of children whose parents earn very little.

My figures for tax contributions I believe are fairly accurate:

Combined NI & Tax contributions on a salary of £50k would be approx. £1185 and approx. £460 on a salary of £25k give or take a few quid.

A_A, that is not what I meant to say, so I cannot have been clear if that is how it came across. Actually, that is completely not what I am saying.

But in order to go to sleep hiding behind a veil of impartiality ( ) let me leave you with a link to The Guardian's Peter Beresford arguing "Why means testing benefits is not efficient or fair." Sad that the editor missed the neither and nor bit, standards must be slipping at The Guardian. Sleep well!

You said we should have universal benefits so we get back some of what we put in. Wouldnt it be more efficient to put in less only get back if you need it?

No. Not when the cost of taking money off you is almost the same no matter how much they take off you, and means testing has administrative costs.

Am I allowed to change my mind on STW? I think I've previously argued that changing CB from being universal to this new system is a good thing. Now I'm not about to argue that it's the worst thing in the world, and I have no more sympathy with the OP's troll (?) than anybody else on this thread. But actually I'm very taken by the Beveridge argument, that the best solution is simply to give benefits to everybody, but tax the richer more. Does this make me more socialist than Junkyard?

Aracer, I will admit to changing my mind on this as well. At first glance the idea of universal benefits seems odd especially at a time of economic malaise. On top of that the wife on £50k and the Alan Sugar examples appear strong arguments on the face of it (albeit red-herrings in practice). I had to go back to some economic and social history stuff and understand why the NHS was built on the principal of universal benefits in the first place and the history of means testing/insurance (the forerunner of US Medicare!?!) before it and then compare this with the criteria for a sensible welfare system before I understood the logic of the historic system. At that point I changed my mind.

The interesting thing about the history of the NHS is the extent of opposition from doctors at the time and the true nature of the "bribes" required (the legacies of which remain today?) before they could be persuaded. And we thought bankers were bad!!!!

No. Not when the cost of taking money off you is almost the same no matter how much they take off you, and means testing has administrative costs.

There is a cost to collecting and distributing money. Why bother doing it if you don't need to? Is there really a big cost to means testing - surely it's just cross referencing income against entitlement, just like IN contributions are cross referenced against pension entitlements or NHS access?

You have much further to travel...wehn you wish to burn the rich you are nearing me

the NHS was built on the principal of universal benefits

CB is not like the NHS
I have no problem with universal access to the NHS , education or other services that they need. It is a different thing altogether to give money to folk who dont need it.

The interesting thing about the history of the NHS is the extent of opposition from doctors at the time

yes it interesting how much they opposed and now look at them- see regulation and forcing folk changes attitudes just like with your banking example - that was what you meant right

re guardian link

One of the great strengths of universal benefits is that it is simple and economical to administer and operate.

and of course unfair as we give millionairres benefits they dont need

I dont get why we would not asses someoens need re benefits.
Its like me going to the hopital and demanding an xray and them giving it to me irrespective of whether i need it or not simply because i have paid into the system and it is simpler than a doctor assessing me and filling in some paper work.

My only concern would be whether those entitled actually bother to claim

Not when said millionaire pays huge amounts of tax, so they still have a large net input to the system. As THM says, SAS getting a bus pass and a winter fuel allowance is an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things - real politics of envy stuff complaining about that, when it doesn't have any negative impact on poor people.

I dont get why we would not asses someoens need re benefits.

...because...

My only concern would be whether those entitled actually bother to claim

Its like me going to the hopital and demanding an xray and them giving it to me irrespective of whether i need it or not simply because i have paid into the system and it is simpler than a doctor assessing me and filling in some paper work.

No it's not - whilst superficially that might seem a similar situation, it's actually totally different, and in fact a strawman.

Not when said millionaire pays huge amounts of tax, so they still have a large net input to the system.

We covered this earler the issue is does he need the money of not wehy are wer goiving it to himm. we are not debating whether those with the most money give the most as we could achieve this even with a regressive taxation system

As THM says, SAS getting a bus pass and a winter fuel allowance is an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things

as is CB to anyone then so why are we debating this
-

real politics of envy stuff complaining about that, when it doesn't have any negative impact on poor people.

Lefties really should bother to develop a lazy, empty pointless insult to use in these circumstances Its not about envy it about fairness. Giving money to millionairres who dont need it [ when we are skint as well] has no impact on the coffers at al

No it's not - whilst superficially that might seem a similar situation, it's actually totally different, and in fact a strawman.

THM brought up the NHS I said it was nothing like CB above but responded using his example

"and of course unfair as we give millionairres benefits they dont need"

Not when said millionaire pays huge amounts of tax, so they still have a large net input to the system.

Exactly.

And I have to say aracer, it really speaks volumes with regards to the impotence of the British Left that two Tory sympathizers such as yourself and THM should have to make the case for the universal welfare state.

I dont see why the "left" should be campaigning to give money to the rich. I assume none of us think Lord Sugar needs it [ envious or otherwise].

With the NHS/ education it is about access based on need- you have it as right and you get it when you need it. Its both universal and not depending on need
I dont see why the welfare state , in general,and CB in particular should be any different.
If you need it you get it , if you dont you dont.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need would apply here I assume.

I dont see why the "left" should be campaigning to give money to the rich.

It is an entitlement, not a special provision for the poor. You don't talk about "giving" medical care to the rich, even though that is exactly what the NHS does, because it is seen through the perspective of an entitlement.

The universal welfare state is a fundamental social-democratic principle, to attack it and replace it with a US style safety net for the poor would be an obvious ambition of right-wing neo-liberal conservatives.

So it will be attacked piecemeal and in stages. Child Benefit was singled out early and the argument against this universal entitlement was won - with no small thanks due to the lack of any opposition from New Labour or the LibDems. That same argument will now be used for attacks on other benefit entitlements.

You don't talk about "giving" medical care to the rich, even though that is exactly what the NHS does, because it is seen through the perspective of an entitlement.

it is done based on need [irrespective of wealth] which is what we should do elsewhere.
We dont give the benefit of healthcare to the healthy so why give a benefit to the wealthy ....i sound like a nu labour spin dr now dont i

Ernie - was not Beveridge's report quite specifically a model of social insurance - the principle of universality was of comprehensive coverage i.e. a universal responsibility and a universal coverage in the event of circumstance, not that everyone should receive regardless of need.

Was it not also quite specifically a model predicated on a single flat rate of contribution, irrespective of means? (paragraph 305 of the report in case you had forgotten it!)

Nice to agree with you Ernie - not often that we manage that. Z11, you need to read the second part of point 305 because is goes on to make the point that those with more money contribute more to the funding of the scheme via taxation. Its quite specific on that. That was and remains the key - the whole welfare state (sorry I agree with Ernie again that JY's distinctions are not valid) is based on the idea that funding is progressive but benefits are universal. I still see no valid to change it.

We covered this earler the issue is does he need the money of not wehy are wer goiving it to himm

In order to improve take up amongst those who do need the benefit. Simples.

"SAS getting a bus pass and a winter fuel allowance is an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things"

as is CB to anyone then so why are we debating this

Try getting a sense of perspective. The actual cost to the country of giving bus passes and winter fuel allowances to millionaires is tiny as there are so few of them. Remove it from them and you'd be able to fund a few pence rise in the winter fuel allowance paid to everybody else (if that). Of course that's always assuming the saving isn't more than swallowed up by the administration. I don't really see how you can possibly compare that with the real difference that CB does make to some people (I mean even people earning twice the average wage appear to notice the difference it makes!)

Giving money to millionairres who dont need it [ when we are skint as well] has no impact on the coffers at al

Congratulations on actually getting it (I'll make the generous assumption you weren't being incorrectly sarcastic).

It's not like it's the first time I've agreed with ernie, but I don't think I've ever agreed with him more.

That's just saying "there's no point in saving money anywhere because whatever you save will never be significant enough". You say saving a hundred quid by not paying Alan Sugar to heat his own home isn't worth doing because it's only a few pence per legitimate recipient but I say that hundred quid is a hundred quid that could be spent on another x hours of a reading specialist in a classroom, or a social worker in the field, or a cop investigating crime. That's a hundred quid worth having!

Also a bit weird how this conversation seems to have become centred on the premise that only millionaires would be cut off when the cutoff would have to be much lower than that. Ffs, the early pages were filled with abuse of the OP expecting his loaded wife getting benefits when she's on 50 grand. There's a lot more people that earn between 50 grand and a million than there are million plus earners!

n order to improve take up amongst those who do need the benefit. Simples.

its not a good enough reason.
I get your point but it is not fair so we should not do it just because it is easier and cheaper. we have this with CB where it is one income and not household - yes it is simple but it is crap and unfair.

Try getting a sense of perspective.

I will try to agree with you.

The actual cost to the country of giving bus passes and winter fuel allowances to millionaires is tiny as there are so few of them.

There will be lots of wealthy folk who dont need this and CB etc
i have no idea what the saving would be and neither have you but the principle is correct though there may be practical issues

I don't really see how you can possibly compare that with the real difference that CB does make to some people (I mean even people earning twice the average wage appear to notice the difference it makes!)

I imagine you need to be bloody wealthy before you dont notice a few grand tax free but that does not mean you need it.

Giving money to millionairres who dont need it [ when we are skint as well] has no impact on the coffers at al
Congratulations on actually getting it (I'll make the generous assumption you weren't being incorrectly sarcastic).

You know what i meant. If you must do lazy dismmisive ad hom [ its seems you must] could you make them funny?

That and other reasons such as the fact that up until the 7th Jan there was no stigma at all associated with receiving child benefit - everyone (with children) received it. But that is no longer the case now.

You must be aware Junkyard that a well used tactic to reduce, freeze, or withdraw, benefit payments, is to stigmatised and demonise the recipients.

...... clearly people have children should either take responsibility and make their own provisions without expecting generous free handouts, or not have children if they can't afford them.

Those who "need" it ? I take it you mean "poor" people then - now that we've established that it should exclude wealthy people. So let's have another look at the cut-off shall we, £45k doesn't sound very poor - let's restrict it to the genuinely poor, no ? And let's not be too generous either, otherwise a benefit dependency culture will develop and the poor will do nothing to help themselves.

Yep, scraping universal child benefit must represent one of this government's greatest success stories so far. Although as I said earlier they had no opposition so it's hard to imagine how they could have failed. Even people purporting to be left-wing have supported them.

i dont see this as a slippery slope tbh

Seriously, you're having a laugh ...... right ?

This government is on a mission to exploit the unique opportunity which it finds itself in. The crises left by the global credit crunch, and caused by their mates in the banking industry, gives them the perfect excuse to dismantle the welfare state and replace it with a brutal free-market alternative. You don't have to be particularly left-wing to see that - just awake.